Traditional Matthew 28:19 is an interpolation 2

[FlamingZword]

This is a new thread that I am starting to inform those who want to have honest respectable debate about the issue of Matthew 28:19 being an interpolation.

In this thread I will not tolerate any demeaning or vicious attack upon my person. if anyone engages in such behavior I will not respond to such posts.
I am here to debate this issue and I will not tolerate any bashing of me.

Here are the rules,

1. No personal attacks upon my person or my motives.
2. There will no baseless accusations, so ask about something and do not assume things.
3. I do not mind honest questions and clear objections.
4. I don't have all the answers to everything, so sometimes my answer will be "I don't know"
5. I have a vast collection of information from over 15 years, I begun studying this issue sometime before 1999.
6. I will post information from what I have collected on my own or was sent to me.
7. Because I do not want to cite very long citations, I will sometimes shorten such citations for brevity sake.
8. I am human and therefore I might be mistaken in some things, so if I am mistaken about something I will correct it.
9. I open this new thread and will start from where I left of in my past postings. so if you want to catch up. you may go to my old threads.

[FlamingZword]

Continuing with more information
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) p. 392, reads; in vol. 4, p. 2637 under “Baptism,” says, “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

A History of the Christian Church (1918) p. 58 by Professor of Ecclesiastical History Williston Walker, at Yale University writes: “This appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula which was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”, “There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Mat. 28:19. That text is early [but not original], however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed and the practice recorded [or interpolated] in the Teaching [Didache] and by Justin”. (p. 95).
We can also read that this baptismal formula was the prototype of the Apostles creed which was created in opposition to the heretics of that time which baptized in the name of Jesus. What many people are not aware of is that the Marcionites and other early groups which the Catholic Church denounced as heretical baptized their believers in the name of Jesus.
“While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious) creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 the earliest known form of the so called Apostles' Creed. What antecedents in Asia Minor, if any, it may have had is still a question in scholarly dispute. Without symbolic authority in the Orient, all the Western churches received this creed from Rome.” (p. 61).

An anonymous commentator (perhaps Ploughman) says the following; “Professor and Church historian Walker reviles the true origin and purpose of Mat 28:19, the spurious Catholic text of Mat 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Mat 28:19, it is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! Therefore, Mat 28:19 is not the ‘Great Commission of Jesus Christ.’ Mat 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Cor 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Mat 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis?”

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915) p. 392, reads; in vol. 4, p. 2637 under “Baptism,” says, “Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Volume 4
edited by James Orr
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tn...YAAJ&pg=PA2637

This quote-snippet is taken from an article by John Chisholm Lambert (1857-1917), and is in about 200 parrot sites of the Matthew 28:19 contras. And it was shown to be unscholarly long ago, back in 2006 in the paper by Tim Hegg.

Matthew 28:19
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
A Text-Critical Investigation (2006)
by Tim Hegg
https://torahresource.com/pdf-articl...estigation.pdf

... Willis also offers the following quote from ISBE, mistakenly said to be from the article on “Baptism” when it is, in fact, extracted from the article on “Sacraments.”

Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus.7

Here is the quote in its fuller context:

(1) In regard to Baptism it has been argued that as Mk 16:15 f occurs in a passage (16:9-20) which textual criticism has shown to have formed no part of the original Gospel, Mt 28:19, standing by itself, is too slender a foundation to support the belief that the ordinance rests upon an injunction of Jesus, more especially as its statements are inconsistent with the results of historical criticism. These results, it is affirmed, prove that all the narratives of the Forty Days are legendary, that Mt 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula “foreign to the mouth of Jesus5' (see Hamack, History of Dogma, I, 79, and the references there given). It is evident, however, that some of these objections rest upon anti-supematural pre-suppositions that really beg the question at issue, and others on conclusions for which real premises are wanting. Over against them all we have to set the positive and weighty fact that from the earliest days of Christianity Baptism appears as the rite of initiation into the fellowship of the church (Acts 2:38,41, et passim), and that even Paul, with all his freedom of thought and spiritual interpretation of the gospel, never questioned its necessity (compare Rom 6:3 ff; 1 Cor 12:13: Eph 4:5). On any other supposition than that of its appointment by our Lord Himself it is difficult to conceive how within the brief space of years between the death of Jesus and the apostle's earliest references to the subject, the ordinance should not only have originated but have established itself in so absolute a manner for Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.8 (emphasis mine)

Willis’ deception in misquoting sources in order to make them say precisely the opposite of what the authors intended is nothing short of reprehensible,9 but unfortunately it represents the misinformation all too often encountered on the internet.10

9.A number of other similar deceptions are part of Willis’ internet page on Matt 28:19, but the few listed here should give the reader sufficient pause in relying upon anything this author presents.

10.One need only search the internet for “Matthew 28:19” to see the manner in which irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception has been multiplied upon unsuspecting readers. Such a state of affairs should strengthen our resolve to accept conclusions only when we have verified the sources.

Amazing.

So we see how hopeless is the shoddy scholarship that comes from the contra Matthew 28:19 partisans. Corrections are simply ignored. Scholarly accuracy is not their concern.

"irresponsible misinformation and malicious deception"

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

An anonymous commentator (perhaps Ploughman) says the following; “Professor and Church historian Walker reviles the true origin and purpose of Mat 28:19, the spurious Catholic text of Mat 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity doctrine. Mat 28:19, it is the first non-Biblical Roman Catholic Creed! Therefore, Mat 28:19 is not the ‘Great Commission of Jesus Christ.’ Mat 28:19 is the great Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Cor 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Mat 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetonianus and Bobiensis?”

Another scholarship disaster.

The anonymous commentary is worthless. And there is nothing surprising that the end of a book (not just Matthew 28:19) is lacuna in ancient mss.

And the "Yeshua/Jesus" comment makes it look like it was made (or changed) in recent years, which should leave out Ploughman. Randall Duane Hughes has some 1962 material from Ploughman:
http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm

What about Professor Walker?

Williston Walker (1860-1922)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williston_Walker

A History of the Christian Church (1918)
Williston Walker
https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ

Discussion here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA95

With the early disciples generality baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” 4 There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 2819. That text is early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching,5 and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).7

So the commentator deceived about Walker. There is nothing reviling the Matthew 28:19 verse.

And if you think it might be another Walker, see this contra page which purports to gives quote from the 1953 edition of his book:
http://www.biblicaltruths.com/has-th...tain-doctrine/

Perhaps this writer is confusing somebodies commentary with the actual book of Walker.

======================

Clinton Willis has dubious quotes that he attributes to Walker from the 1953 edition

A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19.
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

Remember, Willis is shown by Tim Hegg to use references that are far from scholarly. This whole situation is a sad reflection on "Oneness" scholarship on this issue. Thus one writer set up a "Oneness Pentecostal Hall of Shame", focused around the attack on Matthew 28:19.

As for Clinton Willis, his LinkedIn page says his "Dr." comes from:

Apostolic Theological Bible College, United Apostolic Theological Seminary
Doctorate of Theology, Ph.D. in Theological and Religious Studies, MA in Church
History, Theology/Theological Studies.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-clinton-willis-38aa4868/

Walker's words would be expected to be identical to 1918, he passed in 1922. David Bernard used his 1947 edition in his bibliography, without any quotes and deceptions.

Next step will be to try to get a copy of the 1953 edition, or perhaps 1847. (There are a number of later editions.)

Abebooks shows a 1950 edition, that might be a good try.
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Boo...-srp5-_-title5

When it comes to the quote-snippet secondary and tertiary and quaternary quoting and misquoting:

None dare call this scholarship!

[Michael The Disciple]

Let us assume for a moment it is spurious. What other verse in Matt's gospel would one use to promote the deity of Christ other than Matt 1:23? It would seem his deity would be REVEALED by the majority version as it has been to many over the years.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

What about Professor Walker?

Walker de facto supports authenticity on both p. 95 (above) and p. 61 where he first says that the Apostle's Creed developed out of an explication of Matthew 28:19.

A History of the Christian Church (1918)
Williston Walker
https://books.google.com/books?id=U_QbAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA61

Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second century.5 At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably
in opposition to Marcionite Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19—the earliest known form of the so-called Apostles’ Creed.

It is totally false "scholarship" to try to marshall Williston Walker, a respected church historian, for arguments against authenticity. When this is simply the opposite position than his writings.

This goes way back, at least to the writing of Clinton Willis, which has had this section online since at least 2005 (2009 in archive.org, however a forum gives this reference from his website in 2005.)

Note the p. 61 and p. 95. These are the pages numbers given by Clinton Willis when he mangles Williston Walker.

A Collection of Evidence Against the
Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19.
https://www.onenesspentecostal.com/matt2819-willis.htm

And I did send Clinton Willis an email today, requesting correction of this item.

Beyond all that, a trinitarian writer, it looks like David Wood, in 2014, who saw the islamists using this Matthew 28:19 corruption argument for their purposes, has specifically pointed out that this "scholarship" reference is bogus.

Heretics United: A Defense of the Textual Integrity and Trinitarian Interpretation of Matthew 28:19 -- Part 1b
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014...f-textual.html

For another example, a number of the articles linked above also have this statement, which supposedly gives us the view of Williston Walker from his A History of the Christian Church:

1953 by Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University. On page 95 we see the historical facts again declared. “With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.’ There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matthew 28:19. That text is early, (but not the original) however. It underlies the Apostles' Creed, and the practice recorded (*or interpolated) in the Teaching, (or the Didache) and by Justin. The Christian leaders of the third century retained the recognition of the earlier form, and, in Rome at least, baptism in the name of Christ was deemed valid, if irregular, certainly from the time of Bishop Stephen (254-257).”

The critical phrases in parentheses above DO NOT appear in Walker’s text and no indication is given anywhere in the article that material found in parentheses are not those of the author being quoted, thus giving out a false impression. Here is the unadulterated text of Walker:

With the early disciples generally baptism was “in the name of Jesus Christ.” There is no mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity in the New Testament, except in the command attributed to Christ in Matt. 2819. That text IS early, however. It underlies the Apostles’ Creed, and the practice recorded in the Teaching, and by Justin… (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1918), p. 95.) (Bold Emphasis and Capitals are mine)

The source cited decidedly does not say that Matthew 28:19 is “not original”; neither does it say that the Trinitarian statement was “interpolated” into the Didache.

The false position trumpted by a number of oneness writers is used as strong ammunition by the islamists to claim that the Bible is corrupt and has been altered and is not accurate and can not be trusted..

And for this purpose they will quote the shoddy scholarship references.

The oneness writers are very wrong, the islamists are very wrong.
The truth is our pure Reformation Bible, and in the majestic Authorized Version.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

[Steven Avery]

Here is a quick summary of the tricks of the Clinton Willis page, the section on Williston Walker. He has three paragraphs.

=============

In the first one he adds his comments right in the quote, drastically changing the meaning:
(but not the original)
(*or interpolated)

Williston Walker does not say anything even remotely like those two phrases. Not even a hint. It is simply fantasy writing by Clinton Willis.

(He also has the quotes marks messed up, ending with 3.)

=============

The second paragraph has nothing at all to do with what was written by Williston Walker. It is just polemic, worthless, that should not be in that section.

It starts:
"On page 61 Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19."

Maybe "reviles" is a 15-year misprint for "reveals". The rest is worthless polemic, and it could be from Clinton Willis, or he could be quoting an unknown source.

=============

The third paragraph has two more comments by Willis put inside the quote:
(Catholic)
(man-made non-inspired spurious)

This is a distraction, especially since the main context is the Apostle's Creed, which is usually sensible for apostolics. Here is how it is given in one spot.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting. Amen.

=============

[Steven Avery]

Clinton Willis has mangled the basics. Although two quotes were accurate, if you remove his (comments that look like part of the quote). However he sticks anonymous commentary between the two quotes, to pretend that they have some relationship to the Williston Walker material.

FZ then uses the mangled material and makes it into complete scholarly gibberish. As if we care about an anonymous source who writes total nonsense. Yet still keeping Williston Walker involved, as part of the charade.

Why does FZ not at least look for the primary source?

In this case the Williston Walker book, right online, full text.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

This is a new thread that I am starting to inform those who want to have honest respectable debate about the issue of Matthew 28:19 being an interpolation.

In this thread I will not tolerate any demeaning or vicious attack upon my person. if anyone engages in such behavior I will not respond to such posts.
I am here to debate this issue and I will not tolerate any bashing of me.

Here are the rules,

1. No personal attacks upon my person or my motives.
2. There will no baseless accusations, so ask about something and do not assume things.
3. I do not mind honest questions and clear objections.
4. I don't have all the answers to everything, so sometimes my answer will be "I don't know"
5. I have a vast collection of information from over 15 years, I begun studying this issue sometime before 1999.
6. I will post information from what I have collected on my own or was sent to me.
7. Because I do not want to cite very long citations, I will sometimes shorten such citations for brevity sake.
8. I am human and therefore I might be mistaken in some things, so if I am mistaken about something I will correct it.
9. I open this new thread and will start from where I left of in my past postings. so if you want to catch up. you may go to my old threads.

You do understand that there are many scholars who believe that Revelation and 2 Thessalonians don't belong in the New Testament. But, what they can't refute is the physical evidence.

I asked you to produce the answers for the inability of translating key scriptures from Matthew from Greek into Hebrew/Aramaic. Was I mocking you? I thought I was being pretty gentle with my post. Yet, you continued to ignore. If Matthew was originally a Hebrew Only manuscript translated into Greek. I can't see it. Please show me and also with what you don't know, can that be a factor in your decision making?

[Praxeas]

Willis is guilty of bad research. He didnt originate these quotes